Synthesis of all Stakeholder Workshops 2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Workshops at the study sites
3. Results from the single steps
   1. Step 1: Review and adjustment of objective(s)
   2. Step 2: Identification of options
   3. Step 3: Identification of relevant criteria for evaluation
   4. Step 4: Scoring the options
   5. Step 5: Criteria ranking
   6. Step 6: Analysis and interpretation
   7. Step 7: Prioritisation of options - negotiation and decision making
   8. Step 8: Embedding into the overall strategy and seeking a commitment
4. Workshop evaluation
5. Strengths, weaknesses and challenges
6. Annex 1: List of stakeholder workshop reports
7. Annex 2: Table showing technologies selected in the course of WB3

Step 2: Identification of options

Source of options

As described in the guidelines, the workshop moderators had to do some preparatory work for step 2, which included a search in the WOCAT database on SLM technologies in order to retrieve a limited number of potential options fitting both the local context and the main objective. At that moment, according to the planning of WB3, all technologies and approaches the study sites had documented in WP3.2 should have already been entered into the database, and as a logical consequence, could have possibly been part of such an option list. Unfortunately, most study sites did not manage to enter their own data on time, i.e. before their second stakeholder workshop, which resulted in a limited number of potential options available in the database. Nevertheless, the local options were everywhere part of the range of options from which to select. Though, in Turkey (both sites) only external options were considered.

Actually, not all study sites did include options from outside their own context, i.e. from other countries. For some sites just nothing suitable was available from the WOCAT database, e.g. for Portugal with the specific degradation problem of forest fires. Others considered the available options as not sufficient, not applicable or not advanced enough for the socio-economic conditions of their study site. It is certainly true that the WOCAT database still only contains a limited number of case studies and therefore is not in a position to propose a range of alternatives for each and every specific context. This was obviously a constraint for some study sites. However, that solutions coming from so called under-developed countries are not relevant for so called developed countries is not necessarily true and is often an unquestioned prejudice. These measures are generally well-tested, cheap and adaptable to different contexts.

The database would certainly have contained more suitable options for the Mediterranean context of DESIRE, if all sites would have entered their documented technologies and approaches in time. This was the original idea and intention in order to provide exchange of knowledge among all sites, but was unfortunately not achieved, because at the time most stakeholder workshops were held, only data from Spain was already included into the database. Still, the local options promoted in stakeholder workshop 1 were available for selection in stakeholder workshop 2 (although not accessible for other sites).

It is remarkable that in many study sites, the options agreed upon during WS1 were not maintained for the selection process during WS2, but new options added (see table 5). In a number of sites, these new options came partly from the WOCAT database, partly from other sources. In fact, for many study sites we don't know, where these new options came from, or at least it was not mentioned in their workshop report.

The Chilean study site included options from a list of technologies promoted by the Incentives System for the Recovery of Degraded Land (SIRSD) in the interior drylands of Chile. Their decision on what technologies to present was based on a comparison of the most required practices from the list of the SIRSD and the technologies selected in workshop 1.

Table 5: Technology options assessed in the 2^nd stakeholder workshop compared to those selected in the 1^st stakeholder workshop

* 3 options from the WOCAT database included but later dropped again (before the multi-criteria assessment)

Annex 2 provides an overview on all options selected in the 1^st stakeholder workshop, those assessed with the WOCAT questionnaires in WP3.2, and those selected in the 2^nd stakeholder workshop.

Presentation to the stakeholders

For explaining the pre-selected options to the stakeholders during the workshop, it was recommended that illustrative posters be produced with the relevant key information in the local language. Such posters were prepared by Chile, Portugal and Spain only. Most study sites used projectors or written summaries to introduce and explain the options. About half of the sites did not indicate how exactly they presented the pre-selected options to the stakeholders.

Examples of technologies, poster format from Portugal (left) and Chile (right).

Adaptations and final selection of options

In most study sites, the list of options presented by the moderators was used as the point of departure without making any specific adaptations or refinements. It might be that stakeholders simply agreed and didn't see any need for adaptation, or in other cases maybe discussion was not encouraged enough by the moderators. Nevertheless, below are some details from study sites that have provided more specific information on this process.

• In Cape Verde, the stakeholders discussed the selection in two groups and agreed that 'terraces' should not be maintained and that all vegetative barriers should be integrated into one technology (independent of plant species), which finally resulted in a list of 5 options.
• In Chile, the group preferred to integrate single measures into technology groups and add a new option (agroforestry); which required some flexibility of the moderators.
• In Greece-Crete there were no necessary adaptations to fit the local context since four out of five options are already applied in the area.
• In Morocco, the selection of 6 options from the 1^st workshop and 3 from the WOCAT database were reduced to total 8, whereas some were adapted to the local context. The 'furrow-enhance runoff water harvesting for olives' from Syria for example was generalized to become 'Olive trees with devices for runoff collection', or grass strips from Tajikistan and the Philippines became 'vegetative strips'.
• In Portugal, the stakeholders proposed to change the 'primary strip network system' into 'strategic management of fuel strips', which is broader. The same was suggested for 'forest fire watch-towers', 'water points' and 'prescribed fire', which were merged into 'infrastructure of forest support'. This resulted in 4 final measures from the original list of 7.
• In Russia - Novy two objectives were selected in step 1. After having explained the options, the stakeholders recognized that the options were the same for both objectives and therefore agreed to merge the two objectives. The options of preselected measures from the WOCAT database have been adjusted to fit the local context.
• In Russia - Djanybek, the two objectives were maintained, but the options were also adapted like in Novy. The workshop report does not contain detailed information on how it was adapted from the WOCAT database.
• In Spain, participants were asked to vote on the 5 most promising measures out of a list of 8 presented options.
• In Turkey - Eskisehir, the stakeholders decided to work with the options as presented by the moderators and only later make necessary adaptations. Finally, 3 similar structural options were merged into one (stone bunds).

Result of Step 2

The expected result was agreeing on 4-7 options to be evaluated in the course of the following steps. This goal was achieved by all study sites. The number of options finally evaluated varies between 4 (Botswana, Portugal, Russia - Novy) and 11 (Turkey - Eskisehir, but for two objectives).